Articles Posted in criminal defense

Published on:

By

Obviously, one great way to defend criminal charges is to attack the evidence; this is most often done via a motion for suppression.  A motion to suppress physical evidence seeks to prevent the prosecution from using certain physical evidence at trial.  A motion to suppress is based on the assertion that the evidence was not legally recovered and therefore cannot be used as proof to support criminal charges.

The first question to ask when considering a motion to suppress is whether or not a warrant was issued for the search; more often than not no warrant is issued for a search of a vehicle during a traffic stop.  Vehicles are effects within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment provision guaranteeing the right of people to be secure in their effects against unreasonable searches, and automobile stops constitute seizures for Fourth Amendment purposes.  People v. Abad, 98 N.Y.2d 12, 16 (N.Y. 2002).   Further, not only a driver, but a passenger as well has the right to challenge the stop and search of the automobile as well as to challenge any evidence recovered there from.  People v. Fore, 131 A.D.2d 329, 330 (1st Dep’t 1987).

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Yes, The district court has personal jurisdiction over a foreign municipality.  In deciding a pretrial motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction a district court has considerable procedural leeway. It may determine the motion on the basis of affidavits alone; or it may permit discovery in aid of the motion; or it may conduct an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the motion. If the court chooses not to conduct a full-blown evidentiary hearing on the motion, the plaintiff need make only a prima facie showing of jurisdiction through its own affidavits and supporting materials.  Marine Midland Bank v. Miller, 664 F.2d 899, 904 (2d Cir. 1981) (internal citations omitted); see also New Moon Shipping Co. v. Man B & W Diesel AG, 121 F.3d 24, 29 (2d Cir. 1997).

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Any law office with a vibrant criminal defense practice is aware of the benefits that can accrue to the parolee if the Parole Officer (“PO”) and the parolee have a good relationship.  However, unfortunately criminal clients often do not take steps necessary to ensure a good working relationship – the result is often more work for the attorneys and more headaches for the parolee.

 

Continue reading →